Thanks Bob

Status
Not open for further replies.

PKevman

New member
DrBrumley said:
Then PK gets scored on himself when it is brought up that since states should do nothing unless the feds give their approval, he should be for the UN to force the United States into an anti abortion position.

Actually, technically, my position was not that the states should do NOTHING unless the feds give their approval. I definitely don't think the United States of America should be 50 individual countries doing their own thing, otherwise we would NOT be the United States of America. I also believe that the government should definitely make "Do not murder" binding law for all of the states, territitories, or provinces that would want to be a PART of the United States of America.

Oh and hey Dr. Brumley, if the United Nations suddenly had the authority to govern every single country in the world, including the United States of America, then you can bet I would be lobbying them to push for anti-abortion laws everywhere in the world.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
I could swear you were giving me a lecture on history not too long ago, but we'll bypass that for a moment. I am not a citizen of the United Nations of the world. That is utterly ridiculous. As much as the UN might aspire to be a one-world government it in fact is not. So to liken my rights as a citizen of the USA in the state of New York as opposed to the state I live in (Indiana) to my rights if I were to go to China as opposed to my rights as a citizen of the USA is ludicrous.

That argument was destroyed utterly and completely, but to make things clear, let's be sure we understand one another:

Dr.B: Are you saying that you and I as citizens of the USA have just as much voice in China as we do in America? Do we have the same voting rights, same freedom, etc... if we go to China as we do here in America?

China and America are two different countries my friend. New York and Indiana are NOT! As such, if I move to New York, I am still a citizen of the USA. I don't have to reapply for citizenship of this country all over again.

This seems to me so simple that only someone who was willingly and deliberately CLINGING to a faulty worldview would continue to deny it!

Hopefully you'll consider this before persisting with this argument. :)

Finally a response.

I did give you a lecture and will continue to do so until you see the error of your argument. So just some basic questions for you as it relates to the UN example.

1) If everyone agreed in the future (100 plus countries, including the United States) to make the UN the world government, what will you say then? Cause instead of being refuted by examples, you will be refuted in real life. (Oh the irony, different topic)

2) And if the United States did in fact enter a One World Government (we have I submit), what right have we to act unilaterally against any dictate they may have?

3) I am a Floridian first and foremost. What happens in my state concern me more than what happens in Indiana. If I move to Indiana, then Indiana will concern me. Your problem seems to be that you think because you don't need papers to move from one state to another, that equates to being an American. No, it means your free. Thats what is the issue.

4) Define state for me? What's the difference between the State of Florida vs, say the state of Russia?
 

PKevman

New member
DrBrumley said:
Finally a response.

Were you sleeping Doc? I responded to this argument multiple times from Stephen and Sopwith. Maybe you missed it?

DrBrumley said:
I did give you a lecture and will continue to do so until you see the error of your argument.

I'm not above making an error, but do not murder should be the binding law for every state. That is no error.

DrBrumley said:
So just some basic questions for you as it relates to the UN example.

:doh: :chuckle:

DrBrumley said:
1) If everyone agreed in the future (100 plus countries, including the United States) to make the UN the world government, what will you say then? Cause instead of being refuted by examples, you will be refuted in real life. (Oh the irony, different topic)

Irrelevant to this discussion my friend. We have 50 United States RIGHT NOW. The objection offered by your side of the fence was that we're pro-choice country by country because we aren't fighting abortion in China like we are here in the USA. Why make an argument and then base it on IF EVERYONE AGREED at some undetermined point in the future? Seems a pretty flimsy basis to build an argument on, but then if that is scoring points in your opinion, have at it. :)

DrBrumley said:
2) And if the United States did in fact enter a One World Government (we have I submit), what right have we to act unilaterally against any dictate they may have?

There is no One World Government. There is definitely one coming. There is no President of the World, and there is no King of the World. The UN is not the governing body for the world, and it is definitely NOT the governing body for the United States of America.

DrBrumley said:
3) I am a Floridian first and foremost. What happens in my state concern me more than what happens in Indiana.

I understand that, but IF you vote in the presidential election your vote affects Indiana, whether you like it or not. We have no vote in China for who rules over there or what they do. To insist we do is just blind adherence to a worldview that one refuses to give up. Please consider this Doc. I like you, you're a good guy and I consider you a friend. I hate to see you so twisted up by strange views. :)
(And that is not an insult to you, just the views)

DrBrumley said:
If I move to Indiana, then Indiana will concern me.

Indiana is a part of the country you live in, however. When the World Trade Center collapsed were you at all concerned for your fellow citizens?

DrBrumley said:
Your problem seems to be that you think because you don't need papers to move from one state to another, that equates to being an American. No, it means your free. Thats what is the issue.

No. Abortion is the issue. The fact that Libertarians promote a position that is pro-choice state by state is what is being argued against, and your side is losing the battle something fierce. But it isn't too late to say: "Hey, I agree. Do not murder should be made a binding law by the federal government and enforced in every state or province or territory that wants to be considered part of the United States of America."

One principle I have argued throughout this thread and will utterly refuse to EVER budge on:
It is wrong to murder innocent babies in the womb, and we need a national law against it! This is the ony solution that will work!

DrBrumley said:
4) Define state for me? What's the difference between the State of Florida vs, say the state of Russia?

Sure. Russia is a country. Florida is a state. A state is a subdivision of a country or government.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I suppose it never occurs to some people that a "libertarian" position on abortion could also be pro-life state by state.

Why some folks are only capable of zeroing in on the negative is beyond me.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
I suppose it never occurs to some people that a "libertarian" position on abortion could also be pro-life state by state.

Why some folks are only capable of zeroing in on the negative is beyond me.

Well, actually thats easy to answer. People are generally negative to begin with.

And freedom and liberty from God is often misunderstood.
 

S†ephen

New member
On Nov. 7, the people of South Dakota will be asked to vote yes or no on Referred Law 6, which restores protection for the right to life of their posterity in the womb.

For the first time since the Supreme Court's unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision, the issue of equal rights for posterity will be decided by a vote of the people, rather than the dictates of unelected federal judges usurping the people's right to decide issues of faith and conscience for themselves.

It seems Mr. Keys is contradicting himself. You say, Mr. Kevin, that you stand for him because he will make DO NOT MURDER a binding law for every state. Yet here he openly supports state choice.

A Satanist could never understand freedom more than a true Christian does. True freedom is found only in Christ. By the very definition of Satanism, it is opposed to Christ and Christianity, so how could a Satanist POSSIBLY understand freedom better than a Christian? This is where political ideas have led you astray my young friend.

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

A Satanist is not free in any way shape or form. He is trapped in bondage and sin.

Romans 8:1-3
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

Romans 6:17-18,20,22

17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.

While politics is an interesting and somewhat important part of life, let us never lose sight of the fact that this world is passing away, and the eternal freedom offered in a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ far exceeds anything offered by any politician or group of politicians!

While I agree with what you have posted it has nothing to do with physical freedom. When it comes to spiritual freedom and morals Granite is so messed up I'm surprised he isn't in a loony bin. But he's hit the nail pretty much on the head in terms of physical freedom. Which is what scares me.

I understand that, but IF you vote in the presidential election your vote affects Indiana, whether you like it or not. We have no vote in China for who rules over there or what they do. To insist we do is just blind adherence to a worldview that one refuses to give up.

Yes but the fact of the matter is that if you wanted to do something bad enough you could do something about abortion in China. Now, it may not make a difference, it may be thrown aside and ignored, but, right now you've done nothing. Which, by your own reason makes you pro abortion country by country.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
'Abortion rights' and the moral threat to freedom

Alan Keyes said:
He has been willing to accept some restrictions on abortion, and goes so far as to suggest that the Supreme Court should have left the matter in the hands of state governments.

In this respect, his stand is reminiscent of the one that Lincoln's nemesis, Stephen Douglas, took on the issue of slavery — a states' rights position that ignores the issue of constitutional principle at stake every time the Declaration's premise of equal unalienable rights is violated. Thompson appears to favor an end to Roe v. Wade, but without acknowledging the nascent child's moral and constitutional right to life, accepting the notion that it would be enough to return the issue to the discretion of the states. This ignores the enormous moral damage that has resulted from the Roe v. Wade decision.

Prior to the era in which Roe v. Wade came before the Supreme Court, every state in the Union prohibited abortion. During that era, a small minority agitated for the right to kill children in the womb, but with few exceptions, state after state reaffirmed the illegality of abortion. When their state-based efforts failed, the agitating minority took action through the federal courts. At that point, the issue of right was joined at the national level, and wrongly decided by the Supreme Court. This unleashed a regime of enforced abortion rights that has resulted in the deaths of scores of millions, in violation of the Constitution's principles and stated goal.

This purposefully-established national regime of injustice, which subverts the fundamental principle of constitutional self-government, has corrupted the moral understanding and expectations of many of our citizens. The notion that we can simply turn the clock back without addressing the corruption of national principle and conscience that it has produced is either naïvely irresponsible or shrewdly malicious. Having poisoned the soil in which it is planted, can we leave the roots of our national liberty to shrivel and die?

When we get past posturing and politically-contrived "pro-life" indicators, the simple fact is that Fred Thompson does not defend the moral and constitutional right to life of the child in the womb. He speaks from no moral conviction. He will therefore have no effective argument against "abortion rights" advocates who will surely decry his willingness to risk forcing women at the state level to endure labor against their will and at great emotional cost, in order to satisfy an arguable procedural objection to the Supreme Court's authority on matters of human rights.

If the only objection to abortion involved this jurisdictional dispute, I too might question the wisdom of usurping a choice fraught with such deep personal consequences. In fact, however, the issue involved goes to the very heart and soul of our claim to liberty. Asking people to accept a difficult personal discipline out of respect for the child's right to life is no less justifiable than asking them to accept the discipline of military life — risking limb, and life and all — to preserve the liberty of the people. The sovereignty of the people cannot survive unless in their exercise of personal sovereignty, every individual maintains the integrity of society's moral and political foundations.

We must ask women to respect the right to life of the helpless child in the womb, so that all of us together can demand that superior ability, or wealth, or military might respect the rights of the people, who might otherwise sink back to the level of the human masses throughout history, who cowered submissively when faced with such proofs of power. As patriots had to give their lives to build our freedom, women and men must live their lives so as to keep it.

What Fred Thompson and all Republicans like him fail to appreciate is that the issue of abortion is just one cutting edge of the assault on personal sovereignty, an assault that aims ultimately to destroy the sovereignty of the people. The aim of statesmanship, therefore, is not just to deal with the issue, but to restore the moral basis of our sovereignty as we do so. Sadly, it is clear that Fred Thompson's script for the presidency includes nothing of the kind.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
PK, in all fairness bro, do you even know Alan Keyes position on this? It seems your a man without a rudder on this?

So go ahead and sign his pledge. I really hope you know what your signing.

:)
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
I’m suggesting that all fifty states secede, and that they do it today. Let that infamous whorehouse on the Potomac fester and die. Let the politicians and pundits and media swine bay at the moon and wail in their desolation, loneliness and greed – for secession by all the states means no more of our money flowing into central government coffers. That’s right, hogs – the trough is empty. Get real jobs or go to Geneva and work for the UN but get the Hell away from me.

Michael Peirce
 

PKevman

New member
I’m suggesting that all fifty states secede, and that they do it today. Let that infamous whorehouse on the Potomac fester and die. Let the politicians and pundits and media swine bay at the moon and wail in their desolation, loneliness and greed – for secession by all the states means no more of our money flowing into central government coffers. That’s right, hogs – the trough is empty. Get real jobs or go to Geneva and work for the UN but get the Hell away from me.

Michael Peirce

Using emotionalism to try to gain points is all I call this. Secede to WHAT? Really, what do you have against living in the United States of America?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Using emotionalism to try to gain points is all I call this.

Call it whatever you want :)

Secede to WHAT?

Um, the way it was supposed to be. Thats a good start

Really, what do you have against living in the United States of America?

Do you really need to ask that? I don't object to living here provided the government is honest, protects our liberties God gave us and all would be good. But when I am a slave, as I do now, when they take my money, take my guns, have to see a police state everywhere, then there is a problem. That it shouldn't have to be. (Not an exhaustive list)

But I am thankful to God. That despite the wickedness around me, I have my family and friends. And His protection.
 

PKevman

New member
Stephen said:
It seems Mr. Keys is contradicting himself. You say, Mr. Kevin, that you stand for him because he will make DO NOT MURDER a binding law for every state. Yet here he openly supports state choice.

You should re-read the quote. He never said he supports state choice. He rejoices in the fact that a state actually got to vote on the issue though. Anyone should!

He has consistently stated he would make abortion illegal everywhere and that its an abomination to the Lord. He also preaches the truth when he says the goal needs to be to change the HEARTS of people. I know he probably won't get elected because Satan would rather have a man like Hillary office, but we can hope. :)

Stephen said:
While I agree with what you have posted it has nothing to do with physical freedom. When it comes to spiritual freedom and morals Granite is so messed up I'm surprised he isn't in a loony bin. But he's hit the nail pretty much on the head in terms of physical freedom. Which is what scares me.

No argument when it comes to Granite morally, but he sometimes has some insightful things to say. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :)
(that was for you Granite)

However, I don't think you and Granite are speaking the same language when it comes to freedom. Satanists exalt themselves and thus their own freedom to do as they please. You don't have to get too far into Anton Lavey's garbage to understand that.

In fact the Libertarian view of striking down laws against morally wicked behavior is more in line with a Satanist's type of government than our Lord's type of government.

Jesus said:But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me. Luke 19:27
Not exactly all flowery and lovey dovey was it?

The fact is that the Lord is harsh against wickedness, and He expects human governments to be the same way. When human governments do NOT treat wickedness harshly, God gets angry!

God says:

And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?”
Ezekiel 13:19

Physical freedom does not come without moral constraints, and thus cannot be divorced. We see this happening in our own society. Whoever said that the evils of our society are to be blamed on CHRISTIANS had no clue what they were talking about. Christians have been the biggest source of sanity in our culture. Secular humanism and evolution have contributed to the great downfall of American morals and standards more than anything else!

Stephen said:
Yes but the fact of the matter is that if you wanted to do something bad enough you could do something about abortion in China. Now, it may not make a difference, it may be thrown aside and ignored, but, right now you've done nothing. Which, by your own reason makes you pro abortion country by country.

The point is and has been that my vote, my influence, my voice, and my citizenship are HERE. This is where I stand the greatest chance of making something happen, NOT in China. Sure if I believed the Lord wanted me to go to China and fight for the unborn there and preach the Gospel, I would. But my ministry is here in the USA, right where I'm at. Trust me, nobody is defending the Libertarian position well with this silly argument. But maybe if you repackage it a few more times, or if DrBrumley or some observer comes up with another way to repackage it, they might declare for themselves some hollow victory. However, it is not a victory in truth because of the many times that the argument has been utterly annihilated like the New England Patriots will be come playoff time. :banana:
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
You should re-read the quote. He never said he supports state choice. He rejoices in the fact that a state actually got to vote on the issue though. Anyone should!

He has consistently stated he would make abortion illegal everywhere and that its an abomination to the Lord. He also preaches the truth when he says the goal needs to be to change the HEARTS of people. I know he probably won't get elected because Satan would rather have a man like Hillary office, but we can hope. :)

That's not quite accurate. This is basically the same position as Ron Paul. He believes the Constitution protects the life of the unborn as does Keyes.

It has been over a week and a half since I posted Ron Paul's article, and you have yet to address the article. See post Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty

How about actually reading it and giving me your honest assessment?
 

PKevman

New member
DrBrumley said:
Do you really need to ask that?

Yes. Because it seems to me you would rather live in the "50 American States that were once United but are now 50 individual American countries".

Doc said:
I don't object to living here provided the government is honest, protects our liberties God gave us and all would be good.

:up: I'm with you here totally!

Doc said:
But when I am a slave,

You aren't a slave. Have you ever seen the movie "Amistad", based on a true story? Read or watch the harrowing descriptions of what real slaves went through and you would not refer to yourself as a slave.

Further than this, if you're saved (which I know you are-it's a rhetorical question not an accusation)-then you ARE FREE! You are NOT a slave to sin! You are free to live righteously for Jesus Christ.

Doc said:
as I do now, when they take my money,

Hey I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but anywhere you live you will have to pay taxes. If you can find a place to live where you don't have to pay taxes of some type let us know. With that said, are the tax codes in our country a mess? Absolutely they are!
Is the government greedy? Absolutely it is!
By the way, you might really like what Alan Keyes has to say on those issues as well!

Alan Keyes said:
On replacing the income tax with a national sales tax

The income tax is a twentieth-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 80 years ago, government had no claim to our income. Only sales, excise, and tariff taxes were allowed.

The income tax in effect makes us vassals to the government. No mere "reform" of this slave tax, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money. Only abolition of the income tax will restore the basic American principle that our income is both our own money and our own private business--not the government's.

Replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would rejuvenate independence and responsibility in our citizens. [It] would also put the American citizen back in control of fiscal policy. The best way to curtail government spending is to cut taxes, because they can't spend what they don't get. With a sales tax, we could deny funds to a spendthrift government--and give ourselves a tax cut--whenever we make the private choice to alter our spending and saving habits.
HERE

Doc said:
take my guns,

I'm all for the right to bear arms. So is Dr. Keyes by the way!

Doc said:
have to see a police state everywhere, then there is a problem. That it shouldn't have to be. (Not an exhaustive list)

DrBrumley, some of the cause of this is the fact that our society has utterly turned its back on God. And we are now living in the midst of a Romans 1 society in which God has given us up to our own desires. Our culture is wicked and brutal because God has been removed from our public schools, and from many of the lives of Americans. If more people got saved, less law enforcement would be necessary.
The increase in wickedness is in direct proportion to the increase in police activity. The increase in wickedness is also directly related to the further dumbing down of our nation's children in Godless public schools that teach information that will never lead to TRANSFORMATION!

DrBrumley said:
But I am thankful to God.

As am I DocB. As am I.

DrBrumley said:
That despite the wickedness around me, I have my family and friends. And His protection.

And now I hope that you will see that the TRUE source of that wickedness is NOT solely the government. In fact it's Satan, his demons, and those whose minds he has blinded into living for themselves and making themselves their own gods.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
PK, I never said people around me are all good clean God loving people.

I know I am not a slave to sin. But we are not a free people by any stretch of the imagination either. I am agreeing with you in principle, just I am not sure you see the whole picture. And I am not saying the government is entirely to blame.
 

PKevman

New member
PK, I never said people around me are all good clean God loving people.

I know I am not a slave to sin. But we are not a free people by any stretch of the imagination either. I am agreeing with you in principle, just I am not sure you see the whole picture. And I am not saying the government is entirely to blame.

:up:

Cool, I just encourage you not to lose focus on what are the most important issues. :)

Let's preach the gospel and changes some hearts, that's the best way to bring about change.

It just so happens we have a man running for president who believes that wholeheartedly. He preaches the Word of God openly in politics! That is the #1 reason I support Keyes. I have NEVER heard Ron Paul or any other politician say anything close to the things that Keyes says.

I know a man who stands for truth and righteousness probably won't get elected. But that won't stop me for voting for him.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
I don't know PK, but you making the bizzare argument that, having just fought a revolution against a highly centralized tyranny, the founders at the constitutional convention supposedly embraced the same kind of tyranny in the form of a highly centralized or national government.

Seems really odd my friend!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top